Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Arizona's public and charter high-school students soon could earn credit for learning about the influence of the Old Testament on art or how biblical references are found throughout literature.

Do the other 44 states not allow that? The only problem with a subject like that is the obvious fact that the time period of school is hopelessly inadequate for anything like a proper study of it.

If 44 states are not even introducing the matter it is no wonder there are so many idiotic comments about the Bible.

What did you think about the idea that any species still evolving is imperfectly adapted on Darwin's own sayso?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

But such a subject would be profoundly boring. A page or two of Dawkins is quite sufficient to prove that.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

If 44 states are not even introducing the matter it is no wonder there are so many idiotic comments about the Bible.

I thought that those comments were coming from you. lol

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I think my username being attached to the post ought to get you to a position more decisive than having just thought they were my comments.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I suppose your post rl is an example of the influence of atheism.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The latest news on the wonders of science is to do with athletes not shaking hands with anyone in the run up to the Olympic Games in London. Or even touching things that others have touched.

It seems that certain performance reducing entities can enter the body through such interaction.

It reminds me of when I was being conditioned to avoid sexual relations with females in any of the countries I was likely to end up in. They told us that VD imps could jump. Then they showed us terrible films of blokes in various conditions caused by such little devils. The neurotic cleanliness brigade knows no limits.

There are subtle suggestions that some countries might be seeking to reduce the performance of targeted athletes by introducing a scientifically developed lergie on to his or her epidermal envelope.

By the time they have finished with this I expect the whole population to be washing hands every five minutes and applying antisceptic gels to their person. Which must be a good thing for Water Supply Company share prices.

Science might well be useful, even wonderful, but anybody who can't accept that it also disturbing and embarrassing must be walking around with eyes shut.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It seems that every square millimetre of our skin can contain a few million viruses and that most of the things we use to combat the bastards only deactivate a small number.

I thought the talking head was going to recommend Domestos and a wire brush as essential accompaniments in the best households for the shower room.

As Mr Obama is so self-evidently dedicated to making sure no American ever has to suffer any inconveniencies it might be worth asking him what he is going to do about this ghastly state of affairs brought to light by the appliance of science to sport.

I expect that those ladies given to displays of distaste at the thought of anything but meticulous cleanliness will spend all day vigorously dusting themselves off with specially sterilised equipment when they watch this story unfold. They will need disposable rubber gloves before taking hold of a handle on a door or a toilet flushing lever.

One might have much fun with such speculations regarding the activities of those who have Kant's Categorical Imperative on Ignore without being conscious of having. A blissful condition I must admit. Hardly scientific!!

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's coming to something when I get thumbed down, and so rapidly too, on a science thread for doing a bit of science.

It's a cliche that Cleanliness is next to Godliness and we can see in the cleanliness fanatic where it leads if taken too far. Like so with Godliness. And criticism of cleanliness taken too far is not an encouragement to uncleanliness. The comparison holds in that criticism of Godliness taken too far is not an encouragement to un-Godliness or proof that Godliness is of no utility. Or should not be.

The atheist thus cannot be a true scientist unless he can prove that there's no utility in Godliness. Which he can't in a way that would make it acceptable to any sensible voter. And he has the "historical pseudomorphosis" to protect him from the howling winds of derision.

His belief is in the way if he can't prove that and thus he is not studying the matter objectively and is therefore not a scientist.

0 Replies

To those who speak doubt about evolution have only to look at spendis last few contiguous posts. He has evolved his output of opinion entirely by meme flow.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Hear, hear... from here.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Lewis black seems to always crack me up.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

To those who speak doubt about evolution have only to look at spendis last few contiguous posts. He has evolved his output of opinion entirely by meme flow.

Fancy somebody thumbing down a person in such an unfortunate state of mind when pity is much more appropriate.

0 Replies

@tenderfoot,

Quote:

Hear, hear... from here.

I didn't understand what fm meant with the post you are agreeing with. It seemed a banal point to make. I don't accept the Dawkinian idea of meme. It is too simple.

I presume Dawkins was anticipating a simple-minded audience which fondly likes to imagine it understands human communication and his concept allows its components to actually think they do and thus satisfies their need in this regard.

I evolved my opinions by meditating at great length on the higher slopes of the Mount of Venus. Imitation is not a factor. It is straightforward "suck it and see" science.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain what fm meant which you must know in order to agree with it.

Thanking you in anticipation etc etc.

0 Replies

I would imagine that this thread has been 55% discussion as to whether ID is religion. We dont seem to have reached an accord on that particular point but, as to the corollary, We all seem to agree that ID IS NOT science (classical definitions of science )

The detection of the great similarities of the workings of life are so redolent of common ancestry that, if just one species of shrimp sued Homo sapiens for plagiarizing the principle protein that occurs in the shrimpal retinae, a judge would have an easy time ruling for the shrimp. (Thats from one of Nick Lanes homilies about how poorly thought out is ID's claim to some kind of scientific descendency.) ID preachers have the scantiest of any kind of scientific evidence that, when IDers concentrate on an area that they feel they can successfully throw up a smokescreen , the real scientists in those fields have no trouble in dismissing the IDer claims of such things as " irreducible complexity", or "specified information".
Whether you notice it or not, the ID claims of biochemicl "IC" are not a big floodgate anymore. They seemingly have shot their entire wad.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

We all seem to agree that ID IS NOT science (classical definitions of science )

But you are not operating the classical definitions of science. You pick and choose what to define as science which permits you to always come to the conclusions you wish to.

Intelligent design is a concept which embraces a far wider range than that you bring to the table.

Quote:

the real scientists in those fields have no trouble in dismissing the IDer claims of such things as " irreducible complexity"
Quote:

If they are going to use the analogy of a foot pump for the flagella to get past the intellectual boundaries of a judge then what can one expect other than the proof that IC can be dismissed. Which it can't.

One might easily imagine that a judge can see the similarities between the two despite the obvious fact that there are none.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Intelligent design is a concept which embraces a far wider range than that you bring to the table.

SILLY

Quote:

a concept which embraces a far wider range

A wider range of what?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

What do you mean rl. Just saying "silly" is how young ladies proceed and big capital letters are a foot stamp, a door slam and indignant high heels fading down the driveway.

Your recent pm initiative was very ******* silly. Don't bother again eh?

A wider range of subject matter. What the **** else you stupid sod?

Psychosomatic and psychosocial ****. How your cerebellum was designed without you realising it has been.

Presumably you think a flagella can be respectably compared to a mechanical pump. As fm does.

You probably agree with him that sociology, psychology and anthropology are not science.

You're out of your depth. Your educational attainments are woefully insufficient for you to have anything worthwhile to contribute to a topic such as this is. As that post proves.

And that goes for the sneaky down-thumbers.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

where science complete their theory, from that religions start their theory.......Religion is wide, all discoveries of the science are already defined by the religion................

1 Reply

@ronald001,

ronald001 wrote:

where science complete their theory, from that religions start their theory.......Religion is wide, all discoveries of the science are already defined by the religion................

Although it is a little difficult to understand exactly what you are saying here, it still sounds like nonsense.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know